An increasing global population, changing weather patterns, diminishing natural resources, and deteriorating environmental conditions are placing tremendous strain on the world’s food supply. Conventional agricultural production and animal-based food systems are resource-intensive, contributing significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, land conversion, and freshwater consumption [1]. These sustainability concerns, coupled with ethical and supply chain vulnerabilities, have intensified the search for innovative, resilient, and environmentally responsible alternatives to traditional food production models [2]. Within this dynamic context, biotechnology-driven approaches are gaining prominence, with precision fermentation emerging as a transformative platform for the production of novel food ingredients [3].

The term “precision fermentation” refers to a controlled fermentation process that utilizes genetically engineered microorganisms to biosynthesize specific, high-value food components. Unlike conventional fermentation, which primarily relies on naturally occurring microbial metabolism, precision fermentation enables molecular-level control over composition, functionality, and quality [4] Advances in synthetic biology, metabolic engineering, and systems microbiology now allow microorganisms to efficiently produce a broad range of bioactive metabolites, vitamins, lipids, enzymes, and flavour compounds [5].

The most significant microbial platforms utilized in industry include filamentous fungi, yeasts, and lactic acid bacteria (LAB), owing to their diverse metabolic capabilities, scalability, and well-established safety profiles. LAB contribute to enhancing the nutritional and functional properties of food by producing metabolites such as organic acids, bioactive peptides, vitamins, and exopolysaccharides [6]. Yeasts, including Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Pichia pastoris, are widely used for recombinant protein production due to their rapid growth, efficient secretion systems, and ability to perform eukaryotic post-translational modifications [7]. Filamentous fungi, such as Trichoderma and Aspergillus species, possess a remarkable ability to secrete enzymes and utilize a wide range of substrates. However, their potential to produce secondary metabolites necessitates rigorous safety evaluation [8].

Beyond microbial selection, the success of precision fermentation depends on the integration of upstream and downstream process optimization. Factors such as substrate selection, oxygen transfer, nutrient balance, and fermentation parameters directly influence microbial metabolism, stress responses, and product yield. Furthermore, downstream processes—including biomass separation, purification, and concentration—play a critical role in determining the economic viability, functional integrity, and purity of food-grade ingredients [9]. Food chemistry attributes such as protein structure, emulsification capacity, gelation behavior, and flavor development must be carefully controlled to ensure consumer acceptance and regulatory compliance [10], [11].

Given the rapid technological advancements and increasing commercial interest in fermentation-derived ingredients, there is a growing need for comprehensive evaluations that integrate microbial platforms, process engineering, food chemistry, and safety considerations [12]. This review critically examines precision fermentation for next-generation food ingredients, focusing on microbial host systems, strain engineering strategies, upstream–downstream integration, functional and sensory attributes, and regulatory frameworks shaping global adoption. This interdisciplinary perspective positions precision fermentation as a foundational technology for developing sustainable, safe, and high-quality food systems.

2. Fermentation technology overview

In the absence of oxygen, microbes like bacteria, yeast, or fungi undergo a biochemical process called fermentation. During this process, organic substances like sugars are converted into other chemicals [13]. It states that this process is crucial for the production of many different goods, such as foods, drinks, biofuels, and medicines.

Fermentation in the traditional sense is carried out by microbes that are either naturally occurring or have undergone minimal modification [15] [16]. It states that this procedure is straightforward, inexpensive, and needs little processing. Conversely, GEMs are employed in precision fermentation to generate extremely targeted end products. This method allows for controlled production, is scalable, and imparts a highly specific and pure product [17]. (See table1)

2.1. Microbes in fermentation

In fermentation processes, microbial strains play a pivotal role in the synthesis of a wide range of substances, including edible foods, medicines, fuels, and industrial chemicals. Key microorganisms utilized in fermentation technologies include cyanobacteria, yeasts, filamentous fungi, algae, & bacteria [14] (Table 2 & 3).

2.2 Modifying and selecting strains

The success of precision fermentation relies heavily on strain selection and modification. The effectiveness, security, and extensibility of manufacturing certain food components are directly affected by the engineering and selection of microbial hosts. It is usual practice to select bacteria as heterologous hosts depending on their ability to produce chemicals or their openness to genetic modification [21]. Due to their robust fermentation performance, food safety, and well-characterized genomes, common framework organisms such as Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Komagataella phaffii, and Bacillus subtilis are favoured [22].

Synthetic biology techniques such as gene circuit design, modular pathway assembly, CRISPR-based editing, and host selection allow for the insertion and optimization of biosynthetic pathways for the creation of colors, tastes, lipids, and proteins [23]. Researchers can now more easily anticipate strain performance, find metabolic bottlenecks, and speed up the design-build-test-learn cycle thanks to computational modeling and the integration of multi-omics data.

To improve characteristics like yield, process stress tolerance, and product purity, engineers use methodologies like evolutionary engineering and adaptive laboratory evolution in addition to rational engineering. Potentially preventing commercialization is the need for changed strains to meet stringent safety standards, such as the US’s GRAS status or the EU’s new food approval [24]. It is crucial to address regulatory, biological, and engineering concerns simultaneously during strain creation, according to in order to guarantee efficient and cost-effective downstream processing on an industrial scale [25]. Ultimately, the integration of molecular innovation with systems-level approaches in strain engineering for precision fermentation facilitates the sustainable production of next-generation food ingredients.

2.2.1 Innovations in fermentation processes

Recent developments in fermentation technology have greatly enhanced the sustainability, extensibility, and effectiveness of bio-based manufacturing processes. Metabolic engineering and synthetic biology utilize CRISPR and AI approaches to optimize the yield of biofuels, enzymes, and chemicals [26]. It is been found that digitalization, automation, and the full-form Internet of Things (IoT), artificial intelligence (AI), and digital twins can optimize fermentation operations. In conjunction with lignocellulosic biorefineries, solid-state fermentation (SSF) expedites the conversion of biomass into chemicals and fuels; it also facilitates enzyme production and the utilization of agro-residues. Biogas generation and pollutant degradation are only two examples of the many uses for microbial consortiums, which allow for complicated biotransformation [27], [28]. Furthermore, the circular bioeconomy can be bolstered and expenses can be decreased through the utilization of agricultural leftovers, CO₂, and syngas [29], [30]. For improved nutrient delivery, process monitoring, and enzyme stability, nanotechnology offers further assistance for effective fermentation through sensors and nanoparticles [31].

3. Microbial platforms for precision fermentation

In precision fermentation, the selection of an appropriate microbial host is crucial for ensuring efficiency, safety, regulatory compliance, and cost-effectiveness. Microorganisms serve as biological factories, and their physiological characteristics—such as growth kinetics, secretion efficiency, metabolic adaptability, and genetic tractability—directly impact fermentation performance and overall process outcomes [32]. In food applications, additional considerations such as historical use, consumer acceptance, and compliance with food safety regulations are equally important. Among the various microbial systems explored, lactic acid bacteria, yeasts, and filamentous fungi represent the most established and industrially relevant platforms for precision fermentation.

3.1 Lactic Acid Bacteria (LAB)

The recognized safety of LAB, including Lactobacillus, Lactococcus, Streptococcus, and Leuconostoc, has supported their extensive use in food fermentations, resulting in strong regulatory acceptance and consumer confidence [33]. Their long-established roles in dairy, cereal, vegetable, and meat fermentations further demonstrate their industrial relevance.

In precision fermentation, LAB are highly regarded for their capacity to generate metabolites that enhance food quality. They produce organic acids, particularly lactic acid, which contribute to microbial stability and desirable sensory properties. Several strains also synthesize bacteriocins and antimicrobial peptides that help improve shelf life [34]. Through protein hydrolysis, LAB release bioactive peptides associated with potential health benefits, including antihypertensive and antioxidant activities [35]. They support flavor formation through volatile compounds such as diacetyl and acetoin, while exopolysaccharide production improves texture and mouthfeel characteristics [36]. Certain species are also capable of producing vitamins, including folate and riboflavin, thereby contributing to natural biofortification approaches [37].

Despite these advantages, LAB possess certain limitations as precision fermentation hosts. Compared with yeasts and filamentous fungi, they generally demonstrate slower growth rates, lower protein secretion efficiency, and restricted post-translational modification capabilities. Consequently, LAB are considered more suitable for metabolite-focused applications rather than large-scale recombinant protein production [38].

3.2 Yeasts

Yeasts represent one of the most extensively used microbial platforms in precision fermentation because of their robustness, scalability, and availability of advanced genetic engineering tools [39]. Species such as Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Komagataella phaffii, and Kluyveromyces lactis are widely employed in the food and biotechnology sectors and are generally recognized for their safety [40].

One of the key advantages of yeasts is their strong protein secretion capability, which makes them highly suitable for recombinant food protein production. Their well-characterized metabolic networks, efficient secretion pathways, and availability of strong promoters support high-level expression of target biomolecules [41]. As eukaryotic organisms, yeasts are also capable of performing important post-translational modifications, including glycosylation and disulfide bond formation, which are essential for generating structurally and functionally comparable animal-derived proteins [42].

Yeasts are extensively utilized for the production of animal-identical dairy proteins, such as caseins and whey proteins, thereby supporting the development of functional dairy alternatives [43]. They are also applied in the production of food-grade enzymes, including rennet substitutes, as well as enzymes used in baking and brewing industries [44]. Furthermore, yeast metabolism contributes to flavor development through the synthesis of higher alcohols and esters and facilitates the production of vitamins and amino acids [45].

Despite these benefits, certain challenges remain associated with yeast-based precision fermentation systems, including hyperglycosylation, metabolic burden on host cells, and downstream purification complexity. Effective management of these factors is necessary to maintain consistent food-grade quality and process efficiency [46].

3.3 Filamentous Fungi

Filamentous fungi, including members of Aspergillus, Trichoderma, and Fusarium, are considered highly valuable microorganisms in precision fermentation because of their superior capacity for extracellular secretion [47]. Their long history of application in food fermentation and industrial biotechnology further reflects their commercial and technological relevance [48].

A significant advantage of these fungi is their ability to release large quantities of enzymes directly into the surrounding fermentation medium, thereby reducing the complexity of downstream processing[49]. They are efficient producers of important industrial enzymes such as amylases, proteases, lipases, and cellulases, which are widely utilized in food manufacturing processes. Moreover, their ability to grow on inexpensive and complex substrates, including agricultural waste materials, makes them economically beneficial for industrial production systems [50].

The use of filamentous fungi has also expanded to the production of mycoproteins, organic acids such as citric and fumaric acid, and compounds that enhance flavor and sensory quality. In addition, their rich secondary metabolism provides significant potential for the discovery and development of novel functional food ingredients.

Nevertheless, safety considerations remain critical because certain filamentous fungal strains may generate mycotoxins. As a result, rigorous strain selection, molecular characterization, and strict control of fermentation parameters are necessary to ensure safe production. Compared with LAB and yeasts, filamentous fungi are generally subjected to more detailed regulatory assessment and comprehensive safety verification before their application in food systems [51].

Advancements in metabolic engineering, synthetic biology, and bioprocess optimization have significantly improved production efficiency, product consistency, and economic feasibility, enabling the development of next-generation food ingredients with enhanced nutritional and sensory properties. Table 5 summarizes the major target compounds, representative microbial hosts, and their corresponding industrial applications in precision fermentation systems.

4. Microbiological Mechanisms Governing Precision Fermentation Performance

In precision fermentation, successful production of food ingredients depends not only on appropriate strain selection and process optimization but also on the underlying microbial metabolic regulation and cellular stress response mechanisms [52]. During large-scale industrial fermentation, microorganisms encounter a variety of environmental and physiological stresses, including acidic pH conditions, osmotic pressure, oxygen limitation, oxidative stress, and nutrient fluctuations [53]. These stress conditions activate adaptive cellular responses that alter metabolic pathways and redistribute intracellular metabolic fluxes, ultimately affecting product yield, process efficiency, impurity formation, and the physicochemical properties of food-related compounds [54].

Microbial cells regulate energy metabolism, redox balance, and stress-protective systems to maintain cellular stability under industrial fermentation conditions. Such physiological adaptations play a crucial role in sustaining microbial viability, enhancing production consistency, and improving the overall quality of fermentation-derived food ingredients [55].

4.1 Acid Stress and Metabolite Regulation in LAB

During fermentation, LAB gradually encounter increasing acid stress due to the accumulation of organic acids in the surrounding environment. To preserve intracellular pH balance and cellular stability, LAB activate adaptive mechanisms such as proton-translocating ATPases and redirect metabolic carbon flow toward alternative biochemical pathways. These physiological responses help microorganisms survive under acidic conditions while simultaneously influencing metabolite production [6].

Such metabolic adjustments can promote the synthesis of valuable compounds, including bioactive peptides, exopolysaccharides, and flavor-associated metabolites that contribute to food functionality, texture, and sensory quality [56]. However, when acid stress becomes excessive, it may negatively affect cellular growth, protein secretion efficiency, and overall microbial viability, thereby reducing fermentation performance [6].

Consequently, acid stress regulation plays a critical role in maintaining the balance between microbial productivity, process stability, and desirable sensory characteristics in LAB-based precision fermentation systems [55].

4.2 Redox Balance and Oxygen Stress in Yeasts

In yeasts such as Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Komagataella phaffii, metabolic performance is strongly influenced by intracellular redox balance. The availability of oxygen plays a key role in regulating the NADH/NAD⁺ ratio, which directly affects the distribution of carbon flux between biomass generation, ethanol formation, and recombinant protein production [57].

Under oxygen-limited conditions or during oxidative stress, yeasts initiate adaptive responses by activating antioxidant defense systems and modifying central carbon metabolic pathways. These physiological adjustments can significantly influence fermentation efficiency as well as the synthesis of flavor-related compounds, including esters and higher alcohols that contribute to the sensory profile of fermented products [7].

Maintaining controlled oxygen transfer during fermentation is therefore essential for preserving redox homeostasis, improving metabolic stability, and ensuring consistent product quality, functionality, and sensory characteristics in yeast-based precision fermentation systems [55].

4.3 Secondary Metabolism and Stress Responses in Filamentous Fungi

Filamentous fungi possess highly complex stress-responsive regulatory systems that control the biosynthesis of secondary metabolites. Environmental factors such as nutrient limitation, oxidative stress, and fluctuations in pH can activate global regulatory proteins, including LaeA and VeA, which regulate gene clusters involved in enzyme secretion, organic acid synthesis, and the production of flavor-related precursors [8].

These regulatory pathways enable filamentous fungi to produce a wide range of high-value metabolites with important industrial applications. However, activation of secondary metabolism under stress conditions can also create safety concerns, as certain pathways may unintentionally stimulate mycotoxin production [58]. Therefore, maintaining carefully controlled fermentation parameters, selecting safe production strains, and implementing rigorous monitoring strategies are essential for ensuring the safety and reliability of food-grade fungal fermentation processes [55].

Overall, these observations demonstrate that the success of precision fermentation depends not only on microbial selection and process engineering but also on a detailed understanding of microbial stress physiology and metabolic pathway regulation [59]. The integration of systems microbiology approaches, including transcriptomics, metabolomics, and flux balance analysis, provides valuable tools for predicting and controlling microbial behavior under industrial fermentation conditions. Such strategies can enhance production yield, improve batch-to-batch consistency, and strengthen food safety in precision fermentation systems [60].

5. Upstream Process Optimization

Upstream process optimization plays a critical role in determining microbial performance, product yield, quality, and the overall economic feasibility of precision fermentation systems. This stage involves the careful selection of substrates, optimization of growth media composition, and regulation of key physicochemical fermentation parameters that directly affect microbial metabolism, cellular growth, and biosynthetic productivity [55], [61].

In food-related precision fermentation processes, upstream optimization is particularly important for ensuring food-grade safety, process consistency, and industrial scalability. Proper optimization strategies also help minimize the generation of undesirable by-products that could negatively influence the sensory, nutritional, or functional characteristics of the final product [52]. Advances in fermentation engineering, media optimization, and process control technologies have enabled improved nutrient utilization, enhanced metabolite production, and greater process stability during large-scale manufacturing. Effective upstream optimization therefore serves as a foundation for achieving efficient, sustainable, and commercially viable precision fermentation processes [62].

5.1 Substrate Selection and Carbon Sources

The choice of substrate and carbon source is a fundamental factor in precision fermentation because it directly affects microbial growth, metabolic performance, and the synthesis of desired target compounds [63]. Traditionally, refined sugars such as glucose and sucrose have been extensively utilized owing to their high fermentability, rapid microbial utilization, and consistent process performance. However, increasing concerns regarding sustainability, resource utilization, and production costs have driven the search for alternative renewable and economically viable feedstock [64], [65]

As a result, agricultural and agro-industrial by-products including molasses, whey permeate, and cereal-based residues are gaining significant attention as sustainable carbon sources in fermentation industries. The utilization of these substrates not only lowers manufacturing costs but also supports circular bioeconomy approaches through the valorization of industrial waste streams [66].

For instance, lactose present in whey-derived substrates is effectively utilized by Kluyveromyces lactis for the production of dairy ingredients and industrial enzymes, whereas molasses is commonly employed in yeast-based fermentation systems for protein production and flavor compound synthesis [67]. In addition to economic benefits, the selection of suitable carbon sources can also influence metabolite profiles, fermentation efficiency, and the sensory characteristics of the final food product.

Lignocellulosic hydrolysates from crop residues like corn stover and sugarcane bagasse offer mixed sugars that can be utilized by engineered microorganisms. However, inhibitory compounds formed during biomass processing may hinder microbial performance, requiring detoxification or strain adaptation [68]. Food waste streams, including fruit, vegetable, and bakery residues, also present sustainable substrate options, though variability in composition challenges process consistency. Overall, substrate optimization is essential, as carbon source composition affects yield, purity, and sensory outcomes in food-oriented fermentation [69].

5.2 Fermentation Parameters

From substrate selection, precise control of fermentation parameters is essential for maximizing productivity and ensuring consistent product quality in precision fermentation. Key operational variables include pH, temperature, oxygen availability, and nutrient supplementation, each of which exerts a strong influence on microbial physiology and metabolic regulation [70].

pH control is particularly important in food fermentation systems, as microbial growth & enzyme activity are highly sensitive to pH fluctuations. Lactic acid bacteria, for example, require tight pH regulation to prevent self-inhibition due to organic acid accumulation, while yeasts and filamentous fungi exhibit broader pH tolerance but show pH-dependent shifts in metabolite production [71]. Automated pH control systems using food-grade buffering agents are commonly employed to maintain optimal conditions throughout fermentation.

Temperature optimization affects enzymatic reaction rates, membrane fluidity, and protein folding. Deviations from optimal temperature ranges can lead to reduced productivity, misfolded proteins, or increased by-product formation. In precision fermentation targeting recombinant proteins, temperature modulation is sometimes used strategically to enhance protein stability and secretion efficiency [72].

Oxygen transfer rate (OTR) is an additional important factor, especially for yeasts and filamentous fungi, which are aerobic or facultatively anaerobic microbes. The synthesis of energy-intensive molecules, including lipids and proteins, as well as redox balance, are affected by the available oxygen in the central carbon metabolism. Insufficient oxygen transfer can limit cell growth and productivity, whereas excessive aeration may increase oxidative stress or undesired metabolite formation. Therefore, careful optimization of agitation speed, aeration rate, and bioreactor design is essential (Garcia-Ochoa & Gomez, 2009).

Nutrient supplementation, including nitrogen sources, vitamins, trace elements, and mineral salts, is necessary to support balanced microbial growth and sustained product formation. Nitrogen availability, in particular, plays a crucial role in protein biosynthesis and metabolic regulation. In food-grade systems, nutrient sources must be carefully selected to comply with safety and labeling requirements, favoring natural or food-approved components wherever possible [60], [73].

Recent advances in bioreactor design, coupled with real-time monitoring and control systems, have significantly improved upstream process stability and reproducibility. The integration of online sensors, such as dissolved oxygen, pH, and biomass probes, along with advanced process analytical technologies (PAT), enables dynamic control of fermentation conditions and rapid detection of process deviations. Such innovations are increasingly important for scaling precision fermentation processes from laboratory to industrial production while maintaining consistent food quality [74].

Although upstream process optimization provides the basis for efficient microbial growth and enhanced synthesis of target compounds, the overall effectiveness of precision fermentation largely relies on the successful recovery and purification of the final food ingredients. Differences in substrate composition, fermentation conditions, and microbial physiology can significantly affect product yield, impurity composition, and matrix complexity, thereby influencing downstream processing requirements [75]. As a result, upstream and downstream stages are closely interconnected, and inadequate fermentation conditions may lead to increased purification challenges and higher processing costs. Therefore, downstream processing approaches must be strategically integrated with upstream fermentation design to ensure food-grade purity, preservation of functional properties, and compliance with regulatory standards. To convert optimized fermentation systems into safe and high-quality precision-fermented food ingredients, the following section discusses downstream processing technologies, including biomass separation, product recovery, and purification methods.

6. DOWNSTREAM PROCESSING AND PURIFICATION

Downstream processing represents one of the most critical and cost-intensive stages of precision fermentation, often accounting for a substantial proportion of the total production expenditure. Beyond its economic significance, downstream operations play a decisive role in determining the purity, functionality, sensory attributes, and regulatory compliance of precision-fermented ingredients [76]. Since the fermentation broth is a highly complex mixture containing microbial biomass, residual nutrients, metabolic by-products, and target molecules, recovery and purification strategies must be carefully designed to ensure product safety and quality [77].

In food-related applications, downstream processing must achieve not only high product recovery and purity but also minimize the presence of contaminants, processing additives, or chemical residues that may negatively influence consumer acceptance and product safety. Consequently, the selection of downstream techniques depends strongly on the characteristics of the target compound, including whether it is a protein, enzyme, organic acid, or other biomolecule, as well as its intracellular or extracellular localization and its sensitivity to physical or chemical stress conditions [78].

6.1 Cell Separation and Product Recovery

Cell separation and product recovery constitute the initial stage of downstream processing in precision fermentation and are essential for obtaining high-quality food ingredients. The primary objective of this step is to efficiently separate microbial biomass from the fermentation broth while recovering the desired target molecule with minimal loss or degradation. In precision fermentation systems, the fermentation medium is highly complex and typically contains microbial cells, residual substrates, metabolic by-products, extracellular proteins, intracellular components, salts, and other suspended particles. If these impurities are not effectively removed at an early stage, they can interfere with subsequent purification operations, reduce product stability, compromise sensory properties, and increase overall processing costs [79].

The choice of recovery strategy largely depends on the nature of the target product, whether it is intracellular or extracellular, as well as the physical characteristics of the fermentation broth. For extracellular products, such as secreted proteins, enzymes, or organic acids, the main objective is to remove microbial cells while retaining the soluble target compound in the liquid phase. In contrast, intracellular products require additional cell disruption techniques to release the desired biomolecules before purification can proceed [80]. Therefore, efficient cell separation is a critical prerequisite for achieving high product yield, purity, and process efficiency.

6.1.1 Centrifugation

It is among the most commonly employed technologies for biomass separation in industrial fermentation processes because of its high efficiency, rapid processing capability, and scalability. Industrial systems such as disc-stack centrifuges and decanter centrifuges are extensively utilized in food and biotechnology industries to clarify fermentation broths containing bacterial or yeast cultures [46]. These systems operate by applying centrifugal force to separate particles based on differences in density, enabling rapid removal of microbial biomass from large fermentation volumes. Disc-stack centrifuges are particularly suitable for low-viscosity broths with fine particles, whereas decanter centrifuges are more effective for handling high-solid-content streams. Despite their effectiveness, centrifugation processes often require substantial energy input and may generate high shear forces that can damage shear-sensitive biomolecules or disrupt fragile fungal mycelia [81]. This limitation becomes particularly important in fermentations involving filamentous fungi, where complex mycelial structures can reduce separation efficiency and increase operational difficulties.

6.1.2 Filtration

This approaches provide an alternative method for biomass removal and are widely applied in food-grade fermentations due to their comparatively gentle operation. Techniques such as depth filtration, microfiltration, and vacuum filtration are commonly used depending on the particle size and viscosity of the fermentation broth. Depth filtration employs porous filter media capable of trapping suspended particles throughout the filter matrix, making it suitable for clarifying broths containing moderate biomass levels [82]. Microfiltration, on the other hand, utilizes membranes with defined pore sizes to separate microbial cells and larger particulates from soluble compounds [83]. Filtration systems are often preferred in continuous processing environments because they can be integrated into automated production lines and generally impose lower mechanical stress on sensitive biomolecules. However, filtration efficiency can decline significantly due to membrane fouling, clogging, and reduced permeate flux, particularly when processing viscous fermentation broths or media containing high concentrations of suspended solids. These challenges may increase maintenance requirements and operational costs [84].

6.1.3 Membrane

These separation technologies, including microfiltration and ultrafiltration, have gained considerable attention in modern precision fermentation processes because they enable both biomass separation and partial product concentration within a single integrated system. Microfiltration membranes are primarily used to remove cells and large particles, while ultrafiltration membranes allow selective retention of proteins, enzymes, and other macromolecules based on molecular size [85]. These membrane systems facilitate the passage of smaller metabolites, salts, and water while concentrating the desired product fraction. Membrane-based processes are particularly advantageous in food applications because they operate under relatively mild temperature conditions, thereby preserving the functional and nutritional properties of sensitive biomolecules. In addition, their modular design, scalability, and compatibility with continuous fermentation systems make them highly attractive for large-scale industrial implementation. The low thermal impact and reduced chemical usage associated with membrane technologies also contribute to improved sustainability and product quality in precision fermentation industries [86].

6.2 Purification Strategies

Following cell separation, purification strategies are employed to isolate the target ingredient from remaining impurities and achieve the required level of food-grade purity. The degree of purification needed varies depending on the intended application, with animal-identical proteins and enzymes generally requiring higher purity than bulk metabolites such as organic acids.

6.2.1 Chromatography

It remains one of the most effective purification methods for high-value food proteins and enzymes produced via precision fermentation [87]. High selectivity and consistent products are made possible by techniques including ion-exchange, size-exclusion, and affinity chromatography. Chromatography, on the other hand, requires a lot of initial investment and might be difficult to scale up for use in high-volume food processing. This means it’s mostly reserved for foods like precision-fermented dairy proteins, where purity and functional equivalency are paramount [88].

6.2.2 Precipitation-based methods

It including pH-induced or salt-induced precipitation, provide a cost-effective alternative for bulk purification. These approaches exploit differences in solubility between the target compound and impurities, allowing selective recovery under controlled conditions. In food systems, precipitation techniques are particularly attractive due to their simplicity and compatibility with food-approved reagents. However, careful optimization is required to prevent protein denaturation or loss of functional properties [89].

6.3.3 Ultrafiltration

It is extensively employed in the fermentation of food for the purpose of concentrating and purifying enzymes, polysaccharides, and proteins.This technique allows separation based on molecular weight cut-off and is often integrated with diafiltration to remove low-molecular-weight impurities. Ultrafiltration offers several advantages, including low energy requirements, scalability, and preservation of native protein structure, making it well-suited for precision-fermented ingredients intended for direct food incorporation [90].

Achieving high purity is essential not only for functional performance but also for sensory quality and safety. Residual microbial components, off-flavor compounds, or unintended metabolites can adversely affect taste, aroma, and consumer acceptance [55]. Moreover, regulatory authorities require a comprehensive characterization of precision-fermented ingredients, particularly those designed to mimic animal-derived proteins, to ensure the absence of toxins, allergens, and genetically modified material in the final product. Consequently, downstream processing strategies must be carefully tailored to meet both technical and regulatory requirements in food applications [38].

7. FOOD CHEMISTRY OUTCOMES

Food chemistry outcomes play a fundamental role in determining the industrial and commercial success of precision-fermented food ingredients because they directly affect product safety, nutritional quality, functionality, sensory performance, and compliance with regulatory standards. Unlike conventional extraction methods that rely on plant or animal sources, precision fermentation offers a high degree of molecular precision and process control, enabling the production of biomolecules with consistent chemical composition, enhanced purity, and predictable functional characteristics [52]. This level of control reduces variability and improves the reproducibility of food ingredients across production batches, making precision fermentation a highly reliable platform for modern food manufacturing.

7.1 Purity and Structural Integrity

One of the most significant advantages of precision fermentation is its ability to produce target biomolecules with exceptionally high purity and structural uniformity. Conventional plant- and animal-derived ingredients are often influenced by environmental conditions, seasonal fluctuations, and biological variability, which can lead to inconsistencies in composition and functionality [59]. In contrast, microbial fermentation systems provide precise control over metabolic pathways, gene expression, and post-translational modifications, resulting in highly reproducible products with minimal batch-to-batch variation [4].

Maintaining structural integrity is especially important for food proteins because their physicochemical and functional properties are strongly dependent on correct molecular folding and conformational stability. Properly folded proteins exhibit desirable characteristics such as high solubility, thermal stability, and effective interactions with lipids, carbohydrates, and water molecules [91]. Conversely, protein misfolding or partial denaturation may result in aggregation, lower bioavailability, poor digestibility, and undesirable textural properties that negatively affect food quality [92]. Precision fermentation platforms, particularly those based on yeast and filamentous fungi, are capable of synthesizing proteins with highly defined secondary and tertiary structures that closely resemble naturally occurring animal proteins such as whey proteins, caseins, and egg white proteins [93].

To controlled biosynthesis, downstream purification processes further contribute to product quality by removing contaminants such as host-cell proteins, residual nucleic acids, endotoxins, and unwanted metabolites. Efficient purification not only ensures compliance with food-grade purity standards but also improves storage stability, shelf life, and processing performance of the final ingredient [94].

7.2 Functional Properties

Precision-fermented ingredients possess highly customizable functional properties, which are critical for their successful incorporation into a wide range of food systems and formulations. Functional attributes including emulsification, foaming ability, gelation behavior, viscosity, and water-holding capacity are largely determined by molecular structure, protein conformation, charge distribution, and surface hydrophobicity of the produced biomolecules [95].

Precision-fermented proteins have shown remarkable emulsifying and foaming capabilities, making them highly suitable for applications in dairy alternatives, bakery products, confectionery items, and egg substitutes. Fermentation-derived whey and egg proteins, for example, demonstrate excellent interfacial adsorption properties that help stabilize oil–water and air–water interfaces, thereby improving texture, creaminess, and product stability [38]. These characteristics are particularly valuable in products such as plant-based milk, yogurt, whipped toppings, and cheese analogs.

Similarly, tailored gelation properties allow precision-fermented proteins to create structured food matrices with desirable firmness, elasticity, chewiness, and moisture retention. Such properties are essential for developing realistic meat analogs and hybrid protein products that closely mimic the texture of conventional animal-derived foods [96]. Water-holding capacity is another important functional characteristic because it directly influences juiciness, mouthfeel, cooking yield, and overall sensory quality [97]. Through metabolic engineering and controlled protein design, precision fermentation enables modification of amino acid composition and molecular conformation to improve hydration and swelling behavior, thereby enhancing the performance of proteins in processed and plant-based food formulations [98].

7.3 Flavor and Aroma Development

Flavor and aroma are among the most influential factors affecting consumer acceptance of precision-fermented foods. During microbial fermentation, microorganisms generate a broad spectrum of volatile and non-volatile compounds, including alcohols, esters, ketones, aldehydes, organic acids, and sulfur-containing molecules. These compounds collectively shape the sensory profile of the final product and can either enhance or negatively affect overall flavor perception [46].

Certain microbial strains naturally synthesize desirable flavor compounds associated with buttery, creamy, cheesy, fruity, or umami characteristics, contributing positively to the sensory quality of fermented foods. However, uncontrolled metabolic activity may also produce undesirable off-flavors such as excessive bitterness, sourness, rancidity, or sulfurous odors [99]. Therefore, careful strain selection, metabolic engineering, and optimization of biosynthetic pathways are essential for directing microbial metabolism toward favorable flavor production [10].

Fermentation conditions, including pH, temperature, oxygen availability, nutrient composition, and fermentation duration, also significantly influence flavor formation and aroma complexity. Precise control of these parameters allows manufacturers to fine-tune sensory profiles and develop products that closely resemble traditional animal-derived foods [55].

With fermentation itself, downstream processing operations such as concentration, purification, and drying can strongly impact flavor retention and stability. High-temperature treatments may cause loss of delicate volatile compounds or generate undesirable chemical reactions that alter aroma profiles [100]. Consequently, advanced low-temperature processing methods and membrane-based separation technologies are increasingly employed to preserve sensitive flavor compounds while maintaining high chemical purity and product stability. Collectively, these technological advancements enable the development of precision-fermented ingredients with clean-label sensory characteristics, improved consumer acceptability, and sensory profiles that closely mimic conventional food products [101].

8. SAFETY AND REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS

The commercial deployment of precision-fermented food ingredients is fundamentally governed by microbial safety, toxicological assurance, and compliance with evolving regulatory frameworks. As these ingredients are often designed to replace or mimic conventional animal-derived components, they are subject to heightened scrutiny regarding strain selection, product purity, allergenicity, and long-term consumption safety. Ensuring consumer trust and regulatory acceptance therefore, requires a comprehensive safety-by-design approach throughout the precision fermentation pipeline [102].

8.1 Microbial Strain Safety and Genetic Stability

The safety of precision-fermented food ingredients primarily depends on the careful selection of suitable microbial host organisms. Regulatory authorities generally prefer microorganisms with established food-grade safety records, including species such as Lactobacillus acidophilus, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Kluyveromyces lactis, Aspergillus niger, and Trichoderma reesei. Many of these microorganisms are recognized within the Qualified Presumption of Safety (QPS) system established by the European Food Safety Authority, while several are also categorized as Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) in the United States [102], [103].

Genetic modifications introduced during precision fermentation must be thoroughly characterized to ensure stability, predictability, and absence of unintended biological effects. Regulatory agencies require comprehensive documentation regarding inserted genes, promoter sequences, expression systems, and long-term genetic stability during industrial-scale fermentation [75]. Particular emphasis is placed on confirming the absence of antibiotic resistance markers, transferable genetic elements, or other biosafety concerns that could potentially affect human health or environmental safety [104]. Furthermore, continuous monitoring of microbial strains throughout repeated fermentation cycles is essential to maintain consistent product quality, process reliability, and safety standards.

8.2 Absence of Toxins and Undesirable Metabolites

An important safety concern in microbial fermentation is the possible production of toxic metabolites or unwanted secondary compounds during cultivation. Although lactic acid bacteria and yeasts are generally considered low-risk microorganisms, certain filamentous fungi may produce harmful mycotoxins when exposed to unsuitable environmental or nutritional conditions [105]. Therefore, strict strain selection procedures, optimized fermentation parameters, and robust downstream purification methods are necessary to prevent the accumulation of hazardous substances such as aflatoxins, ochratoxin A, and trichothecenes [106].

Downstream processing also plays a vital role in ensuring product safety by removing impurities including host-cell proteins, residual nucleic acids, endotoxins, and low-molecular-weight contaminants that may negatively affect product purity or consumer safety [107]. To verify the absence of undesirable compounds, advanced analytical techniques such as immunoassays, high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), and mass spectrometry are extensively employed during quality control and final product evaluation [94]. These analytical approaches help confirm that precision-fermented ingredients meet stringent food safety and regulatory standards before commercial distribution.

8.3 Allergenicity and Toxicological Assessment

Assessment of allergenicity is particularly critical for precision-fermented proteins designed to replace conventional dairy, egg, or meat-derived ingredients. Even when fermentation-derived proteins are structurally identical to naturally occurring animal proteins, they must still undergo detailed allergenicity evaluation to ensure consumer safety [95]. Such evaluations typically include computational sequence homology analysis, in vitro digestibility studies, and, when necessary, clinical risk assessments to determine the likelihood of allergic reactions [108].

With allergenicity testing, toxicological assessments are required to establish safe levels of dietary exposure. These studies may involve subchronic feeding trials, metabolic evaluations, and exposure assessments to identify any potential adverse effects associated with long-term consumption [109]. Toxicological investigations are especially important for newly developed proteins, enzymes, or metabolites that do not possess a documented history of human consumption (EFSA, 2022). Transparent reporting of safety data and scientifically validated risk assessments are therefore essential for both regulatory approval and public trust in precision-fermented foods.

8.4 Global Regulatory Frameworks and Market Implications

Regulatory approaches governing precision-fermented food ingredients differ considerably among countries and regions, significantly influencing commercialization timelines and market accessibility [3]. In the United States, many precision-fermented ingredients are evaluated through the GRAS notification system, which relies on scientific evidence and expert consensus demonstrating product safety based on publicly available data [110].

In contrast, the European Union regulates many fermentation-derived ingredients under the Novel Foods Regulation (EU) 2015/2283, which requires extensive safety documentation, toxicological evaluation, and pre-market authorization before commercialization. Several countries in the Asia-Pacific region are also actively revising their regulatory systems to accommodate emerging fermentation-derived proteins, enzymes, and bioactive compounds [111].

Despite growing global interest in precision fermentation, regulatory harmonization remains a major challenge. Differences in approval procedures, labeling regulations, safety assessment methodologies, and review timelines can create obstacles for international market expansion and trade [112]. Consequently, effective collaboration with regulatory authorities, implementation of standardized safety evaluation protocols, and transparent communication of scientific safety data are crucial for promoting responsible innovation and accelerating the global adoption of precision fermentation technologies within the food industry.

9. CHALLENGES AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES

Although precision fermentation has emerged as a highly promising technology for the production of sustainable and functional food ingredients, its large-scale commercialization is still constrained by several economic, technical, regulatory, and social challenges. While substantial progress has been achieved in microbial engineering, bioprocess optimization, and product development, overcoming these barriers is essential for the successful integration of precision-fermented ingredients into mainstream food systems [52].

One of the most significant limitations is the high overall production cost associated with precision fermentation. The economic burden primarily arises from the use of expensive fermentation media, high energy consumption, sophisticated bioreactor systems, sterilization requirements, and downstream purification operations, which often represent a major proportion of total manufacturing expenses [4], [94]. In particular, purification processes such as centrifugation, membrane filtration, chromatography, and drying require substantial operational and capital investment. Consequently, improving economic feasibility has become a central focus of current research and industrial development [113]. Strategies such as the utilization of inexpensive renewable feedstocks, agricultural by-products, lignocellulosic biomass, and food-processing waste streams are being explored to reduce substrate costs and improve process sustainability. In addition, process intensification approaches, continuous fermentation systems, and simplified purification technologies may significantly lower production expenses and improve competitiveness with conventional animal- and plant-derived ingredients [114].

Scaling up precision fermentation from laboratory and pilot scales to industrial production also presents considerable engineering and operational challenges. Conditions that are easily controlled in small-scale fermenters often become difficult to maintain uniformly in large bioreactors. Parameters such as oxygen transfer, nutrient distribution, mixing efficiency, temperature gradients, and pH stability can vary significantly across industrial-scale systems, leading to fluctuations in microbial growth, metabolic activity, and product consistency [115]. These variations may reduce productivity, affect product quality, and increase batch-to-batch variability. Moreover, maintaining genetic stability of engineered microbial strains over prolonged fermentation cycles is essential to ensure consistent performance, regulatory compliance, and long-term industrial reliability [116]. To address these challenges, future developments are expected to focus on advanced bioreactor designs, automated process control systems, continuous manufacturing platforms, and real-time monitoring technologies capable of optimizing fermentation performance dynamically.

Another important challenge is consumer perception and public acceptance of precision-fermented foods. Since many precision fermentation processes involve genetically engineered microorganisms, consumers may express concerns related to safety, naturalness, ethical considerations, and long-term health impacts [112]. Public skepticism can significantly influence market adoption, even when scientific evidence supports product safety and sustainability. Therefore, transparent communication regarding production methods, ingredient safety, environmental benefits, and regulatory approval is essential for building consumer trust [117]. Sustainability-focused marketing, clear labeling practices, and educational initiatives can also help improve public understanding and acceptance of precision-fermented products [118].

Regulatory complexity further complicates the commercialization of precision-fermented ingredients on a global scale. Different countries and regions apply varying standards for safety assessment, product approval, labeling, and risk evaluation. Such regulatory fragmentation increases compliance costs, delays market entry, and creates uncertainty for manufacturers seeking international commercialization [119]. Harmonization of regulatory frameworks and development of internationally accepted safety assessment protocols could significantly accelerate responsible innovation and global adoption of precision fermentation technologies [120].

Future research and industrial development are increasingly directed toward systems-level optimization and integration of advanced computational tools. Emerging approaches involving multi-omics technologies, synthetic biology, and artificial intelligence-driven strain engineering are enabling more precise control of microbial metabolism, improved product yields, and faster development of optimized production strains [121], [122]

Furthermore, integrating precision fermentation within the framework of the circular bioeconomy offers substantial opportunities for improving sustainability and resource efficiency [123]. The use of agricultural residues, food-processing by-products, and organic waste materials as fermentation substrates can reduce dependence on refined sugars and minimize environmental impact [124]. Such approaches not only enhance economic viability but also contribute to waste valorization, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and more sustainable food production systems.

10. CONCLUSION

Precision fermentation represents a transformative and rapidly evolving approach for the production of next-generation food ingredients with enhanced sustainability, functionality, and consistency. By utilizing carefully selected and genetically optimized microbial platforms, including lactic acid bacteria, yeasts, and filamentous fungi, precision fermentation enables the controlled synthesis of proteins, enzymes, bioactive compounds, flavor molecules, and other high-value food ingredients. Advances in metabolic engineering, systems biology, synthetic biology, and process optimization have significantly improved production efficiency, scalability, and product quality.

At the same time, successful commercialization of precision-fermented ingredients requires careful attention to several critical factors, including substrate selection, fermentation optimization, downstream processing efficiency, safety validation, and regulatory compliance. Maintaining food-grade purity, genetic stability, and consumer confidence remains essential throughout the production chain. Although challenges related to production costs, industrial scale-up, regulatory fragmentation, and public acceptance continue to exist, ongoing technological innovations are providing promising solutions to these limitations.

Future developments in artificial intelligence-assisted strain engineering, continuous bioprocessing, and circular bioeconomy integration are expected to further improve both the sustainability and economic feasibility of precision fermentation systems. By reducing reliance on conventional livestock production, lowering environmental impact, diversifying global protein sources, and enhancing food system resilience, precision fermentation has the potential to become a key technological pillar in the transition toward a more sustainable, secure, and future-ready global food system.

11. References

[1]          A. Espinosa-Marrón et al., “Environmental Impact of Animal-Based Food Production and the Feasibility of a Shift Toward Sustainable Plant-Based Diets in the United States,” Front. Sustain., vol. 3, p. 841106, May 2022, doi: 10.3389/frsus.2022.841106.

[2]          J. Poore and T. Nemecek, “Erratum for the Research Article ‘Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers’ by J. Poore and T. Nemecek,” Science, vol. 363, no. 6429, Feb. 2019, doi: 10.1126/science.aaw9908.

[3]          K. Verma, P. Duhan, D. Pal, P. Verma, and P. Bansal, “Precision fermentation for the next generation of food ingredients: Opportunities and challenges,” Future Foods, vol. 12, p. 100750, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.fufo.2025.100750.

[4]          M. A. Augustin, C. J. Hartley, G. Maloney, and S. Tyndall, “Innovation in precision fermentation for food ingredients,” Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr., vol. 64, no. 18, pp. 6218–6238, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.1080/10408398.2023.2166014.

[5]          S. M. Mirsalami and M. Mirsalami, “Advances in genetically engineered microorganisms: Transforming food production through precision fermentation and synthetic biology,” Future Foods, vol. 11, p. 100601, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.fufo.2025.100601.

[6]          K. Papadimitriou et al., “Stress Physiology of Lactic Acid Bacteria,” Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev., vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 837–890, Sep. 2016, doi: 10.1128/MMBR.00076-15.

[7]          G. Walker and G. Stewart, “Saccharomyces cerevisiae in the Production of Fermented Beverages,” Beverages, vol. 2, no. 4, p. 30, Nov. 2016, doi: 10.3390/beverages2040030.

[8]          N. P. Keller, “Fungal secondary metabolism: regulation, function and drug discovery,” Nat. Rev. Microbiol., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 167–180, Mar. 2019, doi: 10.1038/s41579-018-0121-1.

[9]          M. Banks, R. Johnson, L. Giver, G. Bryant, and M. Guo, “Industrial production of microbial protein products,” Curr. Opin. Biotechnol., vol. 75, p. 102707, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2022.102707.

[10]       G. R. Gibson et al., “Expert consensus document: The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of prebiotics,” Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol., vol. 14, no. 8, pp. 491–502, Aug. 2017, doi: 10.1038/nrgastro.2017.75.

[11]       T. Wijesekara and I. Ekaette, “The Role of Proteins in the Sensory Perception/Organoleptic Properties of Food,” Food Chem. Int., vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 196–215, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.1002/fci2.70015.

[12]       N. Abbaspour, “Fermentation’s pivotal role in shaping the future of plant-based foods: An integrative review of fermentation processes and their impact on sensory and health benefits,” Appl. Food Res., vol. 4, no. 2, p. 100468, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.afres.2024.100468.

[13]       C. Voidarou et al., “Fermentative Foods: Microbiology, Biochemistry, Potential Human Health Benefits and Public Health Issues,” Foods, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 69, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.3390/foods10010069.

[14]       K. Verma, P. Duhan, D. Pal, P. Verma, and P. Bansal, “Precision fermentation for the next generation of food ingredients: Opportunities and challenges,” Future Foods, vol. 12, p. 100750, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.fufo.2025.100750.

[15]       A. A. Ramírez Rojas, R. Swidah, and D. Schindler, “Microbes of traditional fermentation processes as synthetic biology chassis to tackle future food challenges,” Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol., vol. 10, p. 982975, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.982975.

[16]       R. Sharma, P. Garg, P. Kumar, S. K. Bhatia, and S. Kulshrestha, “Microbial Fermentation and Its Role in Quality Improvement of Fermented Foods,” Fermentation, vol. 6, no. 4, p. 106, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.3390/fermentation6040106.

[17]       D. Bogueva and S. Danova, “Comparing Precision Fermentation and Traditional Fermentations: Consumer Views,” in Consumer Perceptions and Food, D. Bogueva, Ed., Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2024, pp. 563–588. doi: 10.1007/978-981-97-7870-6_27.

[18]       A. Ahmad, F. Banat, H. Alsafar, and S. W. Hasan, “An overview of biodegradable poly (lactic acid) production from fermentative lactic acid for biomedical and bioplastic applications,” Biomass Convers. Biorefinery, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 3057–3076, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s13399-022-02581-3.

[19]       İ. İncir and Ö. Kaplan, “Escherichia coli in the production of biopharmaceuticals,” Biotechnol. Appl. Biochem., vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 528–541, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.1002/bab.2664.

[20]       J. Kim, M. Salvador, E. Saunders, J. González, C. Avignone-Rossa, and J. I. Jiménez, “Properties of alternative microbial hosts used in synthetic biology: towards the design of a modular chassis,” Essays Biochem., vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 303–313, Nov. 2016, doi: 10.1042/EBC20160015.

[21]       M. Lubbers, N. Jaspers, and D. Claessen, “Engineering bacterial cell morphology for the design of robust cell factories,” Biochem. Biophys. Rep., vol. 43, p. 102076, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.bbrep.2025.102076.

[22]       E. Henderson, “Microbial Cell Factories: A Comparative Analysis of Hosts for Sustainable Chemical Production,” Nov. 2025, [Online]. Available: https://www.metabeng.com/posts/microbial-cell-factories-a-comparative-analysis-of-hosts-for-sustainable-chemical-production?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[23]       B. Peng and S. Wei, “Synthetic Engineering of Microbes for Production of Terpenoid Food Ingredients,” J. Agric. Food Chem., vol. 73, no. 17, pp. 10052–10068, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.5c01724.

[24]       D. J. Powell, D. Li, B. Smith, and W. N. Chen, “Cultivated meat microbiological safety considerations and practices,” Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf., vol. 24, no. 1, p. e70077, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1111/1541-4337.70077.

[25]       A. M. Elazzazy, M. N. Baeshen, K. M. Alasmi, S. I. Alqurashi, S. E. Desouky, and S. M. R. Khattab, “Where Biology Meets Engineering: Scaling Up Microbial Nutraceuticals to Bridge Nutrition, Therapeutics, and Global Impact,” Microorganisms, vol. 13, no. 3, p. 566, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.3390/microorganisms13030566.

[26]       J. Yadav, H. Marwah, and C. Kumar, “Synthetic biology and metabolic engineering paving the way for sustainable next-gen biofuels: a comprehensive review,” Energy Adv., vol. 4, no. 10, pp. 1209–1228, 2025, doi: 10.1039/D5YA00118H.

[27]       H.-L. Jiang, Q. He, Z. He, C. L. Hemme, L. Wu, and J. Zhou, “Continuous Cellulosic Bioethanol Fermentation by Cyclic Fed-Batch Cocultivation,” Appl. Environ. Microbiol., vol. 79, no. 5, pp. 1580–1589, Mar. 2013, doi: 10.1128/AEM.02617-12.

[28]       C. S. Yee et al., “Smart Fermentation Technologies: Microbial Process Control in Traditional Fermented Foods,” Fermentation, vol. 11, no. 6, p. 323, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.3390/fermentation11060323.

[29]       G. Šelo, M. Planinić, M. Tišma, S. Tomas, D. Koceva Komlenić, and A. Bucić-Kojić, “A Comprehensive Review on Valorization of Agro-Food Industrial Residues by Solid-State Fermentation,” Foods, vol. 10, no. 5, p. 927, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.3390/foods10050927.

[30]       S. Singh, W. S. Yap, X. Y. Ge, V. L. X. Min, and D. Choudhury, “Cultured meat production fuelled by fermentation,” Trends Food Sci. Technol., vol. 120, pp. 48–58, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2021.12.028.

[31]       V. L. Vasantha, S. Sharvari, N. S. Alfia, and N. Praveen, “Application of nanotechnology toward improved production of sustainable bioenergy,” in Nanomaterials, Elsevier, 2021, pp. 445–479. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-822401-4.00010-6.

[32]       S. A. Siddiqui et al., “An overview of fermentation in the food industry – looking back from a new perspective,” Bioresour. Bioprocess., vol. 10, no. 1, p. 85, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.1186/s40643-023-00702-y.

[33]       N. K. Leeuwendaal, C. Stanton, P. W. O’Toole, and T. P. Beresford, “Fermented Foods, Health and the Gut Microbiome,” Nutrients, vol. 14, no. 7, p. 1527, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.3390/nu14071527.

[34]       P. D. Cotter, R. P. Ross, and C. Hill, “Bacteriocins — a viable alternative to antibiotics?,” Nat. Rev. Microbiol., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 95–105, Feb. 2013, doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2937.

[35]       H. Korhonen and A. Pihlanto, “Bioactive peptides: Production and functionality,” Int. Dairy J., vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 945–960, Sep. 2006, doi: 10.1016/j.idairyj.2005.10.012.

[36]       M. K. Alam et al., “Yogurt volatile compounds as affected by processing and compositional factors: A review,” Trends Food Sci. Technol., vol. 158, p. 104921, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2025.104921.

[37]       V. Capozzi, P. Russo, M. T. Dueñas, P. López, and G. Spano, “Lactic acid bacteria producing B-group vitamins: a great potential for functional cereals products,” Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol., vol. 96, no. 6, pp. 1383–1394, Dec. 2012, doi: 10.1007/s00253-012-4440-2.

[38]       A. D. Shukla, S. Rai, P. Ramachandran, S. Sangeeta, A. Tiwari, and A. Tiwari, “Precision fermentation: Pioneering the future of sustainable and alternative animal protein production,” Appl. Food Res., vol. 6, no. 1, p. 102015, Jun. 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.afres.2026.102015.

[39]       J. Nielsen, “Yeast Systems Biology: Model Organism and Cell Factory,” Biotechnol. J., vol. 14, no. 9, p. 1800421, Sep. 2019, doi: 10.1002/biot.201800421.

[40]       V. Albuquerque Cunha, L. Ferreira Lima, N. Gomes De Oliveira Júnior, K. Botelho Sampaio De Oliveira, K. Ofuji Osiro, and O. Luiz Franco, “Reprogramming Yeast for Animal Protein Production in Food Biotechnology,” Trends Food Sci. Technol., p. 105797, May 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2026.105797.

[41]       M. Zhang, L. Xiang, L. Qin, H. Yue, and C. Li, “Yeast species resource exploration and application in cell factories,” Synth. Syst. Biotechnol., vol. 13, pp. 376–389, Sep. 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.synbio.2025.12.007.

[42]       S. C. Spohner, H. Müller, H. Quitmann, and P. Czermak, “Expression of enzymes for the usage in food and feed industry with Pichia pastoris,” J. Biotechnol., vol. 202, pp. 118–134, May 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2015.01.027.

[43]       M. E. Jach, A. Serefko, M. Ziaja, and M. Kieliszek, “Yeast Protein as an Easily Accessible Food Source,” Metabolites, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 63, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.3390/metabo12010063.

[44]       K. D. Mojsov, “Aspergillus Enzymes for Food Industries,” in New and Future Developments in Microbial Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Elsevier, 2016, pp. 215–222. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-63505-1.00033-6.

[45]       J. Wei, P. Xian, and Y. Huang, “Amino acids in yeast fermentation: A review of their roles from nutrients to modulators,” Int. J. Food Microbiol., vol. 456, p. 111801, Jul. 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2026.111801.

[46]       J. Zhang et al., “Downstream processing strategies for the sustainable production of cultivated meat,” Trends Food Sci. Technol., vol. 172, p. 105665, Jun. 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2026.105665.

[47]       T. C. Cairns, X. Zheng, P. Zheng, J. Sun, and V. Meyer, “Moulding the mould: understanding and reprogramming filamentous fungal growth and morphogenesis for next generation cell factories,” Biotechnol. Biofuels, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 77, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.1186/s13068-019-1400-4.

[48]       V. Meyer et al., “Current challenges of research on filamentous fungi in relation to human welfare and a sustainable bio-economy: a white paper,” Fungal Biol. Biotechnol., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 6, s40694-016-0024–8, Dec. 2016, doi: 10.1186/s40694-016-0024-8.

[49]       P. D. Somadder, A. Trzcinski, G. Chen, Y. Chow, and M. A. Manan, “Fermentation of sorghum with Aspergillus strains: A promising and sustainable pathway to enzyme production- comprehensive review,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 213, p. 115456, May 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2025.115456.

[50]       F. Siddikey et al., “Enzyme Technology in the Food Industry: Molecular Mechanisms, Applications, and Sustainable Innovations,” Food Sci. Nutr., vol. 13, no. 9, p. e70927, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.1002/fsn3.70927.

[51]       J. I. Pitt and J. D. Miller, “A Concise History of Mycotoxin Research,” J. Agric. Food Chem., vol. 65, no. 33, pp. 7021–7033, Aug. 2017, doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.6b04494.

[52]       O. V. Obayomi et al., “Transition from fermentation to precision fermentation: Role in sustainable food system,” Biotechnol. Rep., vol. 50, p. e00952, Jun. 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.btre.2026.e00952.

[53]       K. Xu, Y. S. Lee, J. Li, and C. Li, “Resistance mechanisms and reprogramming of microorganisms for efficient biorefinery under multiple environmental stresses,” Synth. Syst. Biotechnol., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 92–98, Jun. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.synbio.2019.02.003.

[54]       K. E. Wellen and C. B. Thompson, “Cellular Metabolic Stress: Considering How Cells Respond to Nutrient Excess,” Mol. Cell, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 323–332, Oct. 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2010.10.004.

[55]       N. V. Kanimozhi, S. Nagalakshmi, and M. Sukumar, “Microbial fermentation strategies for enhancing sensory and nutritional quality of plant-based protein foods,” Food Wellness, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 100046, Dec. 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.foodw.2026.100046.

[56]       B. Gonçalves et al., “Probiotic and Bioactive Compounds in Foods: From Antioxidant Properties to Gut Microbiota Modulation,” Molecules, vol. 31, no. 2, p. 345, Jan. 2026, doi: 10.3390/molecules31020345.

[57]       M. Kuzman, Ö. Ata, and D. Mattanovich, “Advancing yeast metabolism for a sustainable single carbon bioeconomy,” FEMS Yeast Res., vol. 25, p. foaf020, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1093/femsyr/foaf020.

[58]       A. A. Zhgun, “Fungal BGCs for Production of Secondary Metabolites: Main Types, Central Roles in Strain Improvement, and Regulation According to the Piano Principle,” Int. J. Mol. Sci., vol. 24, no. 13, p. 11184, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.3390/ijms241311184.

[59]       S. A. O. Adeyeye, A. S. Babu, A. Subudhi, and B. R. Adeyeye, “Precision Fermentation Processes for Producing Novel Foods and Its Sustainable Applications,” J. Basic Microbiol., vol. 66, no. 2, p. e70160, Feb. 2026, doi: 10.1002/jobm.70160.

[60]       J. K. Khanijou et al., “Metabolomics and modelling approaches for systems metabolic engineering,” Metab. Eng. Commun., vol. 15, p. e00209, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.mec.2022.e00209.

[61]       Y.-H. Du, M.-Y. Wang, L.-H. Yang, L.-L. Tong, D.-S. Guo, and X.-J. Ji, “Optimization and Scale-Up of Fermentation Processes Driven by Models,” Bioengineering, vol. 9, no. 9, p. 473, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.3390/bioengineering9090473.

[62]       V. Outram, A. Yiakoumetti, C. Green, R. King, J. M. Ward, and A. Conradie, “Enhancing the stability of continuous fermentations for platform chemical production,” iScience, vol. 28, no. 3, p. 111786, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2025.111786.

[63]       A. V. Rusu, M. Trif, and J. M. Rocha, “Microbial Secondary Metabolites via Fermentation Approaches for Dietary Supplementation Formulations,” Molecules, vol. 28, no. 16, p. 6020, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.3390/molecules28166020.

[64]       J. Goldemberg, “Ethanol for a Sustainable Energy Future,” Science, vol. 315, no. 5813, pp. 808–810, Feb. 2007, doi: 10.1126/science.1137013.

[65]       S. I. Mussatto et al., “Technological trends, global market, and challenges of bio-ethanol production,” Biotechnol. Adv., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 817–830, Nov. 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2010.07.001.

[66]       D. J. Faria, A. P. A. D. Carvalho, and C. A. Conte-Junior, “Valorization of Fermented Food Wastes and Byproducts: Bioactive and Valuable Compounds, Bioproduct Synthesis, and Applications,” Fermentation, vol. 9, no. 10, p. 920, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.3390/fermentation9100920.

[67]       M. I. González–Siso, M. A. Freire–Picos, E. Ramil, M. González–Domı́nguez, A. Rodrı́guez Torres, and M. E. Cerdán, “Respirofermentative metabolism in Kluyveromyces lactis:,” Enzyme Microb. Technol., vol. 26, no. 9–10, pp. 699–705, Jun. 2000, doi: 10.1016/S0141-0229(00)00161-7.

[68]       E. Palmqvist and B. Hahn-Hägerdal, “Fermentation of lignocellulosic hydrolysates. II: inhibitors and mechanisms of inhibition,” Bioresour. Technol., vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 25–33, Aug. 2000, doi: 10.1016/S0960-8524(99)00161-3.

[69]       R. Kumar Gupta et al., “Valorization of fruits and vegetables waste byproducts for development of sustainable food packaging applications,” Waste Manag. Bull., vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 21–40, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.wmb.2024.08.005.

[70]       P. S. Gangakhedkar et al., “Fermentation of Fruits and Vegetables: Bridging Traditional Wisdom and Modern Science for Food Preservation and Nutritional Value Improvements,” Foods, vol. 14, no. 13, p. 2155, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.3390/foods14132155.

[71]       N. V. Narendranath and R. Power, “Relationship between pH and Medium Dissolved Solids in Terms of Growth and Metabolism of Lactobacilli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae during Ethanol Production,” Appl. Environ. Microbiol., vol. 71, no. 5, pp. 2239–2243, May 2005, doi: 10.1128/AEM.71.5.2239-2243.2005.

[72]       B. Gasser et al., “Protein folding and conformational stress in microbial cells producing recombinant proteins: a host comparative overview,” Microb. Cell Factories, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 11, Oct. 2008, doi: 10.1186/1475-2859-7-11.

[73]       A. Ayaz, W. Zaman, Z. Radák, and Y. Gu, “Green strength: The role of micronutrients in plant-based diets for athletic performance enhancement,” Heliyon, vol. 10, no. 12, p. e32803, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e32803.

[74]       S. Nikita, S. Mishra, K. Gupta, V. Runkana, J. Gomes, and A. S. Rathore, “Advances in bioreactor control for production of biotherapeutic products,” Biotechnol. Bioeng., vol. 120, no. 5, pp. 1189–1214, May 2023, doi: 10.1002/bit.28346.

[75]       S. A. O. Adeyeye, A. S. Babu, A. Subudhi, and B. R. Adeyeye, “Precision Fermentation Processes for Producing Novel Foods and Its Sustainable Applications,” J. Basic Microbiol., vol. 66, no. 2, p. e70160, Feb. 2026, doi: 10.1002/jobm.70160.

[76]       A. J. J. Straathof, “The Proportion of Downstream Costs in Fermentative Production Processes,” in Comprehensive Biotechnology, Elsevier, 2011, pp. 811–814. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-088504-9.00492-X.

[77]       A. Tiwari and K. Nakamura, “Closing the loop on biohydrogen production: A critical review on the post-fermentation broth management techniques,” Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, vol. 81, pp. 595–614, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.07.307.

[78]       E. Gil-Martín, T. Forbes-Hernández, A. Romero, D. Cianciosi, F. Giampieri, and M. Battino, “Influence of the extraction method on the recovery of bioactive phenolic compounds from food industry by-products,” Food Chem., vol. 378, p. 131918, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.131918.

[79]       R. P. Singh, P. K. Singh, R. Gupta, and R. L. Singh, “Biotechnological Tools to Enhance Sustainable Production,” in Biotechnology for Sustainable Agriculture, Elsevier, 2018, pp. 19–66. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-812160-3.00002-7.

[80]       P. F. Stanbury, A. Whitaker, and S. J. Hall, “The recovery and purification of fermentation products,” in Principles of Fermentation Technology, Elsevier, 2017, pp. 619–686. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-099953-1.00010-7.

[81]       E. S. Tarleton and R. J. Wakeman, “Solid/liquid separation equipment,” in Solid/Liquid Separation, Elsevier, 2007, pp. 1–77. doi: 10.1016/B978-185617421-3/50001-8.

[82]       M. V. Pattarkine and W.-C. Hung, “Current advances in separation technologies for vaccine production,” in Bioreactor Design Concepts for Viral Vaccine Production, Elsevier, 2024, pp. 429–443. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-443-15378-5.00024-3.

[83]       C. Charcosset, “Membrane Systems and Technology,” in Comprehensive Biotechnology, Elsevier, 2011, pp. 603–618. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-088504-9.00131-8.

[84]       D. A. Da’na, N. S. M. Nawi, F. I. Sangor, M. Y. Ashfaq, W. J. Lau, and M. A. Al-Ghouti, “Strategies for the use and interpretation of functionalized reverse osmosis membranes with improved antifouling and anti-scaling properties for the desalination process,” Desalination, vol. 600, p. 118508, May 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2024.118508.

[85]       J. Wen, Q. Han, M. Qiu, L. Jiang, X. Chen, and Y. Fan, “Membrane technologies for the separation and purification of functional oligosaccharides: A review,” Sep. Purif. Technol., vol. 346, p. 127463, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2024.127463.

[86]       J. Z. Leos and A. L. Zydney, Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration: Principles and Applications, 1st ed. Routledge, 2017. doi: 10.1201/9780203747223.

[87]       J. K. Keppler and R. M. Boom, “Downstream Processing of Food Proteins from Precision Fermentation,” Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 459–474, Apr. 2026, doi: 10.1146/annurev-food-060424-091647.

[88]       J. LeBarre et al., “Modernizing the platform process of antibody purification for enhanced impurity clearance,” Sep. Purif. Technol., vol. 382, p. 136113, Feb. 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2025.136113.

[89]       J. A. Asenjo and B. A. Andrews, “Aqueous two-phase systems for protein separation: A perspective,” J. Chromatogr. A, vol. 1218, no. 49, pp. 8826–8835, Dec. 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2011.06.051.

[90]       R. Van Reis and A. Zydney, “Membrane separations in biotechnology,” Curr. Opin. Biotechnol., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 208–211, Apr. 2001, doi: 10.1016/S0958-1669(00)00201-9.

[91]       P. Masson and S. Lushchekina, “Conformational Stability and Denaturation Processes of Proteins Investigated by Electrophoresis under Extreme Conditions,” Molecules, vol. 27, no. 20, p. 6861, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.3390/molecules27206861.

[92]       M. R. Ajmal, “Protein Misfolding and Aggregation in Proteinopathies: Causes, Mechanism and Cellular Response,” Diseases, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 30, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.3390/diseases11010030.

[93]       A. Cleaver and J. Brock, “Harnessing Fungal Secretion Systems for Precision Fermentation of Food Proteins,” ACS Synth. Biol., vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 4153–4162, Nov. 2025, doi: 10.1021/acssynbio.5c00521.

[94]       A. K. Patel, C.-D. Dong, C.-W. Chen, A. Pandey, and R. R. Singhania, “Production, purification, and application of microbial enzymes,” in Biotechnology of Microbial Enzymes, Elsevier, 2023, pp. 25–57. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-443-19059-9.00019-0.

[95]       J. K. Keppler, M. W. T. Werten, and R. M. Boom, “Structural deviations between native and precision fermentation-derived food proteins: Techno-functionality and structure formation strategies,” Trends Food Sci. Technol., vol. 168, p. 105493, Feb. 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2025.105493.

[96]       S. Rout, G. Abdi, and P. P. Srivastav, “Advances in Structuring of Plant-based Meat Alternatives by Electrospinning Technology: Market Aspects, Challenges and Future Trends,” Appl. Food Res., p. 102130, May 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.afres.2026.102130.

[97]       R. D. Warner, “The Eating Quality of Meat—IV Water-Holding Capacity and Juiciness,” in Lawrie´s Meat Science, Elsevier, 2017, pp. 419–459. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-100694-8.00014-5.

[98]       S. Rout and P. P. Srivastav, “Recent trends in the production of proteins by precision fermentation for improving the quality and attributes of food: Role of genetic engineering towards next generation of food production,” The Microbe, vol. 8, p. 100551, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.microb.2025.100551.

[99]       K. Zhang, T.-T. Zhang, R.-R. Guo, Q. Ye, H.-L. Zhao, and X.-H. Huang, “The regulation of key flavor of traditional fermented food by microbial metabolism: A review,” Food Chem. X, vol. 19, p. 100871, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.fochx.2023.100871.

[100]     Y. Zhao et al., “Study on the Mechanisms of Flavor Compound Changes During the Lactic Fermentation Process of Peach and Apricot Mixed Juice,” Foods, vol. 13, no. 23, p. 3835, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.3390/foods13233835.

[101]     R. Castro-Muñoz and V. Fíla, “Membrane-based technologies as an emerging tool for separating high-added-value compounds from natural products,” Trends Food Sci. Technol., vol. 82, pp. 8–20, Dec. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2018.09.017.

[102]     K. Verma, P. Duhan, D. Pal, P. Verma, and P. Bansal, “Precision fermentation for the next generation of food ingredients: Opportunities and challenges,” Future Foods, vol. 12, p. 100750, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.fufo.2025.100750.

[103]     J.-H. Mah and C. Ruiz-Capillas, “Editorial: The Microbiological Functionality and Safety of Fermented Foods,” Front. Microbiol., vol. 13, p. 979329, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.979329.

[104]     D. A. Jonas et al., “Safety Considerations of DNA in Food,” Ann. Nutr. Metab., vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 235–254, 2001, doi: 10.1159/000046734.

[105]     A. Zapaśnik, B. Sokołowska, and M. Bryła, “Role of Lactic Acid Bacteria in Food Preservation and Safety,” Foods, vol. 11, no. 9, p. 1283, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.3390/foods11091283.

[106]     Y. Zhu, Y. Hassan, D. Lepp, S. Shao, and T. Zhou, “Strategies and Methodologies for Developing Microbial Detoxification Systems to Mitigate Mycotoxins,” Toxins, vol. 9, no. 4, p. 130, Apr. 2017, doi: 10.3390/toxins9040130.

[107]     K. Yeop et al., “Optimizing clarification processes in biopharmaceutical manufacturing through quality by design: Strategies, implications, and future prospects,” Biotechnol. Prog., vol. 41, no. 6, p. e70063, Nov. 2025, doi: 10.1002/btpr.70063.

[108]     V. D. Fytsilis et al., “Integrating in vitro digestion and peptidomics into novel food allergenicity assessment: A study on Clostridium tyrobutyricum biomass,” Curr. Res. Food Sci., vol. 11, p. 101237, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.crfs.2025.101237.

[109]     K. R. Phipps et al., “Allergenicity, Genotoxicity and Subchronic Toxicity Assessment of IgG Binding Protein LT Produced From  Aspergillus oryzae ,” J. Appl. Toxicol., vol. 45, no. 8, pp. 1614–1636, Aug. 2025, doi: 10.1002/jat.4787.

[110]     N. O. F. Kassem et al., “A Review of the Toxicity of Ingredients in e-Cigarettes, Including Those Ingredients Having the FDA’s ‘Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS)’ Regulatory Status for Use in Food,” Nicotine Tob. Res., vol. 26, no. 11, pp. 1445–1454, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntae123.

[111]     X. Liu, D. Wu, Y. Shao, and Y. Wu, “New food sources and production systems: a comparison of international regulations and China’s advancements in novel foods with synthetic biology,” Food Sci. Hum. Wellness, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 2519–2542, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.26599/FSHW.2022.9250253.

[112]     M. Siegrist and C. Hartmann, “Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies,” Nat. Food, vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 343–350, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.1038/s43016-020-0094-x.

[113]     E. Madsen, J. Kaiser, U. Krühne, and M. Pinelo, “Single pass tangential flow filtration: Critical operational variables, fouling, and main current applications,” Sep. Purif. Technol., vol. 291, p. 120949, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2022.120949.

[114]     R. S. Abolore, S. Jaiswal, and A. K. Jaiswal, “Green and sustainable pretreatment methods for cellulose extraction from lignocellulosic biomass and its applications: A review,” Carbohydr. Polym. Technol. Appl., vol. 7, p. 100396, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.carpta.2023.100396.

[115]     J. S. Crater and J. C. Lievense, “Scale-up of industrial microbial processes,” FEMS Microbiol. Lett., vol. 365, no. 13, Jul. 2018, doi: 10.1093/femsle/fny138.

[116]     M. Reyes-Insa, P. Sentís-Moré, I. Alegre, and N. Ortega-Olivé, “Continuous fermentation in food biotechnology: bridging the gap between batch and continuous processing,” Curr. Res. Biotechnol., vol. 11, p. 100387, 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.crbiot.2026.100387.

[117]     A. Monaco, J. Kotz, M. Al Masri, A. Allmeta, K. P. Purnhagen, and L. M. König, “Consumers’ perception of novel foods and the impact of heuristics and biases: A systematic review,” Appetite, vol. 196, p. 107285, May 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2024.107285.

[118]     C. Bryant and J. Barnett, “Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: A systematic review,” Meat Sci., vol. 143, pp. 8–17, Sep. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.04.008.

[119]     G. V. Barbosa-Cánovas, D. Bermúdez-Aguirre, B. Gonçalves Franco, K. Candoğan, and G. Y. Shin, “Novel food processing technologies and regulatory hurdles,” in Ensuring Global Food Safety, Elsevier, 2022, pp. 221–228. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-816011-4.00006-9.

[120]     B. Keohavong, “Digital innovation integration into biotechnology for development of sustainable protein frontiers for poultry nutrition in a circular bioeconomy,” Poult. Sci., vol. 105, no. 2, p. 106276, Feb. 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2025.106276.

[121]     J. Nielsen and J. D. Keasling, “Engineering Cellular Metabolism,” Cell, vol. 164, no. 6, pp. 1185–1197, Mar. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.02.004.

[122]     T. Radivojević, Z. Costello, K. Workman, and H. Garcia Martin, “A machine learning Automated Recommendation Tool for synthetic biology,” Nat. Commun., vol. 11, no. 1, p. 4879, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-18008-4.

[123]     Y. Zhang, M. Ishikawa, N. Jiang, and X. Zhang, “Fermentation-Based Strategies for the Feed Industry: Nutritional Augmentation, Environmental Sustainability,” Fermentation, vol. 12, no. 2, p. 103, Feb. 2026, doi: 10.3390/fermentation12020103.

[124]     T. H. Nguyen, X. Wang, D. Utomo, E. Gage, and B. Xu, “Circular bioeconomy and sustainable food systems: What are the possible mechanisms?,” Clean. Circ. Bioeconomy, vol. 11, p. 100145, Jul. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.clcb.2025.100145.